If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Websleuths News

Join Websleuths Radio for the final discussion of THE KILLING SEASON
with Josh Zemam, Rachel Mills and special guests including Bob Kolker author of Lost Girls

Defending against an intruder

Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"

Did JBR defend herself against an intruder? Did she have injuries that suggested she fought back? Could she have defended herself, or was the intruder too prepared? Why was the intruder so prepared?

It was pointed out on another thread that screaming is only for movies, and that other victims of crimes or attempted crimes did not scream. Why didn't JBR scream if she was assaulted by an intruder? Well, there is a neighbor who thought they heard a scream.

Children can defend themselves, and screaming or raising attention is in fact a basic child defense technique.

If someone starts touching or grabbing a child, the child should attract attention by kicking, yelling, and screaming. He can yell "He's not my dad!" "She's not my mom!" "Stranger, stranger!" and "He's attacking me!"

You make good points, Holdon. This stuff should be taught more widely. It might lessen the number of children who get victimized.

Let me also say this: when I was that young, there was one thing I sure would have done: BITE!

I would say that your third question should be categorized, since it depends on the answer to the first question.

But since you know where I stand, I won't answer them unless you want me to.

Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum.
As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

Teaching young kids how to act defensively is an excellent idea, and should be part of every schools' curriculum. As far as we know, there were no defensive injuries on JBR, on her hands, etc. that would suggest she fought an intruder. The scream is about as much as we have right now, and her scream could have been in reaction to feeling the pain of either being sexually assaulted (enough to cause bleeding), or screaming in fear if she realized what was happening. Neighbor Melanie Stanton, when first mentioning the scream, is sure it was a child's scream. As a mother myself, I do know what she means; kids screams can be distinguished from adults pretty easily. However I don't rule out the possibility that the scream may have been PR's. A woman can have a higher pitched voice that can be mistaken for a child's, especially when the person that heard it was woken up from sleep by the scream.

This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.

This is not true, according to what I've read. Scratching and clawing is a common defense, and supporting the idea that JBR scratched and clawed her attacker is the unknown male DNA found underneath JBR's fingernails. I believe this DNA matches the DNA that was found on her longjohns and in her underwear.

Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

Yet another IDI inaccuracy. The DNA under her nails does NOT match any other DNA, and was degraded (meaning much older) than the other DNA profiles. There was NO evidence of blood or skin under her nails, so the scratching and clawing is unlikely. Also, the coroner did not follow proper sterile procedures for clipping JBR's nails; he used the SAME clipper for each finger, instead of the standard procedure of a clean clipper for each nail.
If JBR hadn't washed her hands in a few days (as her mother said, JBR disliked hand-washing and avoided it whenever she could) that DNA may not have been associated with the crime, or that day, at all. Her mother said that JBE did not have a bath that day and also could not remember whether she had a bath the previous day.

Are you simply calling this CNN news report a lie?

"Late last year, Lacy ordered a test using new methodology known as "touch" testing on genetic material found on a pair of long johns that had been pulled up over the girl's underwear. That material matched DNA that was found on the girl's underwear and under her fingernails in a test conducted in 1998. The DNA belongs to an unidentified man, Lacy said."

No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.

No, but Henry Lee is. In A documentary made by Larry Schiller in 2006, he said that the DNA under her nails only had three identifiable markers, and they had to use amplification just to get that many.

The CNN report is repeating an old lie that was started by the Ramseys and their legal machine that has been repeated without challenge for so long it's been accpeted as truth. Tom Bennet, the DA's investigator at the time, said that the DNA under her nails was of no value.

How's that?

Actually, Holdon, I'm kind of surprised that you would take a media report on this case at face value. You're always telling us not to believe anything I read, see or hear about this case. But that's neither here nor there.

The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.

The test referred to in the CNN article wasn't even ordered until 'late last year', or late 2007. Your 2006 documentary, and your claim that CNN is 'repeating an old lie' seem to be ignorant to, or in denial of, the recent news events of the case.

Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.

Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.

Wrong, Holdon. I am not ignorant of anything. And the only person in denial is Mary Lacy.

Really? Are you sure?

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Look at that CNN report again. The test you speak of happening in 2007 was the new test, but it was only on the longjohns. The idea that the fingernail DNA matches that comes from much earlier. Since 2002, the Ramseys and their legal team have tried to claim that the fingernail DNA matches the underwear DNA, even though it has so few markers it can't be worth anything. That's the old lie that CNN was repeating, because they took that old lie at face value and just added this on to it. The fingernail DNA is a dead end.

Who took that old lie? CNN?

I think you're getting confused between CNN 'adding' things onto other things, and actual conclusions from a test that was ordered in late 2007.